Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Lupaka v. Peru, Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, April 6, 2026

6 Apr 2026
Lupaka Gold Corp. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/46
View case details
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Jia M. Cobb
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Lupaka Gold Corp, Peru
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This document is an Order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the domestic proceedings between Lupaka Gold Corp. and the Republic of Peru. The procedural posture concerns the Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of a Letter Rogatory to facilitate international judicial assistance.

The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion, operating within the procedural framework of the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and its Additional Protocol. In its operative directions, the Court instructed the Clerk of Court to affix the Court's signature and official seal on the designated Form USM-272. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the executed and sealed form be returned to the Plaintiff to execute transmittal in accordance with the procedures established under the aforementioned Convention.